LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

@Ctrooper 2011 Spitzer recanted.

Grey and Grey Morality implies some sort moral/ethical failing on the part of both sides, and I'm interested to hear what you think the pro-gay-marriage side is.

edited 18th Nov '12 12:10:50 PM by Fish1

Ah yes, the "homosexuals shouldn't be treated the same as us because (insert stupid reasons here), but that doesn't mean we should pick on them or anything" homophobes. They annoy me even more than Worley and Phelps because apparently you're not allowed to criticize them since they're trying to be nice.

And could we please avoid the "gay cure" thing? The major problem with any kind of "gay cure" is the implication that non-heterosexuality is a disease, or that LGBTs need to be "fixed" somehow, and no amount of good intentions will help you sell that. No one ever talks about "curing" heterosexuality after all, because that's "normal".

Actually, banning gay marriage is treating homosexuals the same as us. Just pointing that out.

No it's not. You are allowed to marry your partner. A gay person is not.

You are allowed to live together in a family only neighbourhood. A gay couple cannot.

You can be at your partner's bedside when they are dying. A gay person cannot.

You get a tax break for declaring your devotion to your partner. A gay person does not.

You are allowed to inherit your partner's things. A gay person is not.

How is that in any way equal?

God, everyone here is on a hair trigger. It's treating everyone the same because they all have the same rights. Everyone has the right to a heterosexual relationship and marriage. Now, you may not think that's fair. But it's still treating everyone the same.

Do you not understand just what is wrong with this argument? Seriously?

Yes, and anti-miscegenation laws were perfectly fair because everyone had the right to marry someone of their own race.

edited 18th Nov '12 1:15:12 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

How is that even a rational argument? Obviously they have that right. Unfortunately that means nothing to them since they aren't attracted to those of the same sex.

@Ultrayellow At most, one person here is on a "hair trigger". Don't tone troll.

That argument is slightly wrong. They don't have a right to a heterosexual marriage because they're not heterosexual.

Hey, but it could be useful when they just want to marry in order to have all the advantages of marriage. :3

French groups (mostly Catholic ones) protest against gay marriage; turnout "insignificant".

Also, as far as slogans go, "One papa one mama — what else?" was not particularly brilliant, I think...

Ultrayellow: Putting aside sexuality, things are still unequal. A man has the right to marry a woman, but a woman does not have this right. I don't see how this can not be unfair.

A woman has the right to marry a man, which a man does not. It's not unequal. It might be unfair, but it's not unequal. It's exactly equal.

Um, yes, plenty of people here are on a hair trigger. The fact that I got such an explosion of reactions from a correction of semantics would seem to prove that.

@Kostya: It's not a rational argument. It's not an argument. It's a correction. If this thread wasn't a bit of an echo chamber, there'd be gay marriage opponents to make that correction. But there aren't , and so I'll do it because it's more interesting and (IMO) more intellectually meaningful than just repeating ourselves.

edited 18th Nov '12 2:20:19 PM by Ultrayellow

From a Certain Point of View, right?

You're right. We should be nicer about our rights being attacked.

Yes, Ultrayellow, lesbians and gay men are equally oppressed by the prohibition of gay marriage. That's not the equality we're fighting for.

• A man and a woman who love each other and want to get married can do so.
• A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, who love each other and want to get married cannot.

These two things are not equal. I don't often say this...but you're factually incorrect, Ultrayellow.

men love men, and women love women. It happens, it's a real thing, and haters need to square with it. Show me a reason not to let gays get married that isn't rooted in Scripture or simple fear of the unknown.

edited 18th Nov '12 3:22:27 PM by drunkscriblerian

An explosion of reactions? At the time you made that post, you had 1 reaction. There is also the fact that the number of reactions does not actually tell you anything about the emotional states of the people making said reactions.

On a hair trigger? Actually, I find this thread amusing and somewhat informative. It's like watching an evolution vs creationism debate - albeit with a less out of date topic this time around. You really can learn some things from a creationist, namely why they reject science (and non-fundamentalist religion, for that matter). But, much like the aforementioned subject, this isn't the sort of thing where I seriously expect the other side to come up with some groundbreaking argument after years of presenting repeatedly debunked claims and silly nonsequitors. You can't go into a debate like this with those expectations without quickly losing your patience.

Ultra you haven't had an explosive reaction. A negative one yes, but that's what happens when you try and use semantics as an excuses to deny people their rights. Here let me spin you argument on its head. If no one is being discriminated against when everyone has the right to Mary someone of the opposite gender, then a law making it only legal to many someone of the SAME gender would likewise not be discriminating? To you see how stupid that argument is?

The argument is not factually correct, we've pointed that out, now we can move on.

From a layman's point of view with the catholic church it seems that every sin not in the big ten is eventually relegated to not-really-an-issue eventually. Do you see this happening with homosexuality? Societies views tend to liberalize over time so I can't see the church sticking with this out-dated view if the rest of society has moved on.

@Silas: What I mean was that I posted one thing that was out of lockstep with the consensus on this forum, to which 11 tropers posted counterarguments (most of which were based on the assumption that I opposed gay marriage). I don't mean it was an explosive reaction in the sense that people got angry (at least, I hope not), but rather in the sense that it was out of proportion.

@DS: I wouldn't have said that in this case, either, DS. You misunderstood my point, which was a response to an earlier post. My point was that men and women have equal rights here. Everyone has the same, equal set of rights. It's just that those rights are fairer for heterosexual people than homosexual people, because they reflect the desires of heterosexual people. But that doesn't mean people don't have technically equal rights.

And secondly, why do I have to bring you proof that gay marriage is wrong? I don't oppose it. It's not my position. All I did was point out that some people were making claims which I didn't think were correct. You seem primed and ready to have an argument with me that I'm sure you would win, if only I held the position I think you think I do.

@Fish: I reiterate my response to Silas, but add that between my first post and my second post I count seven reactions, as opposed to your count of one.

You're using a very odd definition of equal. By your logic people have equal rights if there's a law saying that you are allowed to steal from black people (after all everyone has the right to steal from black people). Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but everyone does not have the equal right to marry the person they love. Either way I don't understand why you're making this argument. It seems to be a pointless argument over semantics that highlights the fact that "equal" is a term that can be twisted simply by changing what you are talking about.

And yes by that definition you did get an explosive reaction, however that's what happens when you an argument about semantics in a topic that is not about semantics.

Am I reading this wrong?

Sun, 18th Nov '12 3:57:17 PM

Sun, 18th Nov '12 4:06:06 PM

Sun, 18th Nov '12 4:10:11 PM

Unless my monitor is playing tricks on me, you had exactly one response when you accused everyone on the thread of having a hair trigger. The fact that there were eventually seven doesn't erase the fact that you jumped to that conclusion well before it was warranted. Which would also indicate that the only reason you made the initial post was so that you could engage in some hand-wringing about how this thread/forum is a pro-gay rights echo chamber.

Would you look at that!

edited 18th Nov '12 4:58:18 PM by Fish1

Why do people who make this argument never seem to realize that in places where same-sex marriage is legitimized, it becomes available to everyone, not just gay people? Two straight men could get married in the Netherlands.